Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
Date: 2012-01-25 20:32:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmoahuL6iEWCxQX7xWMx4=7COAbGrH0rUFsxoVqpKtG+XLw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> New version that repairs a defective test case.

Committed.  I don't find this to be particularly good style:

+       for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
+               ret = (!IsPolymorphicType(get_opclass_input_type(classObjectId[i
+                          irel->rd_att->attrs[i]->atttypid == typeObjectId[i]);

...but I am not sure whether we have any formal policy against it, so
I just committed it as-is for now.  I would have surrounded the loop
with an if (ret) block and written the body of the loop as if
(condition) { ret = false; break; }.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2012-01-25 20:50:09
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2012-01-25 20:29:32
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group